Drug Possesion

Published on: August 18, 2012

Court Discusses Conspiracy Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The two accused men, charged with the crimes of Criminal Sale of a Dangerous Drug and Conspiracy, move to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution puts them in jeopardy again for crimes of which they already have been convicted in another jurisdiction. They contend, in short, that their prosecution in Nassau County of the crime of Conspiracy included therein acts which are alleged in this indictment and thus fall within the proscriptions of the Criminal Procedure Law which prohibit such a second prosecution. The Court ordered a hearing on the contentions of the accused men and the facts and circumstances of the issues as testified to at the hearing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused men with others met the undercover Police Officer who was accompanied by an informer at a restaurant owned by one of the accused in Queens County Restaurant. There was a discussion concerning the buying and selling of cocaine and the accused men quoted prices to the undercover detective. An agreement was made the next day to meet at the same place for the purchase of 1/8 of a kilo and at the subsequent meeting the accused delivered the 1/8 of a kilo to the officer and received from him the sum of $4,000 as a payment. Having established a basis for doing business, the accused men and undercover officer, entered into another deal at a Restaurant for the sale of a kilo for $32,000. The actual sale for the kilo was made in Nassau County.

Subsequently, the accused men were indicted in Queens County charged with the crime of Criminal Sale in the First Degree, involving the $4,000 sale and the conspiracy which led up to that substantive crime. They were also indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury for crimes involving the $32,000 sale, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance (drug possession) and Conspiracy.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Defendants Arrested for Narcotic Sales

by Stephen Bilkis

In May 1990, members of the narcotics teams arrested three men for street narcotics sales to undercover police officers. In each case, both the arrest and the evident conduct constituting the crimes was charged occurred entirely within the county and pursuant to an agreement between the district attorney and the special narcotics prosecutor, the criminal actions were commenced by the filing of felony complaints in court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that all the three men were arraigned and their cases adjourned for action by the special narcotics grand jury and/or possible disposition by way of waiver of indictment and the filing of superior court’s information. The counsel orally moved for dismissal of the felony complaints on the ground that the court had lacked of geographical authority as defined in law. With the concurrence of all the parties, the court reserved decision and set a schedule for the filing of written motions and memoranda of law.

While the court was waiting from the city of New York’s response, the prosecutor presented the two men’s matters to a special narcotics grand jury. A true bill was voted with respect to each and the charges were filed. The indictments are currently pending in other special narcotics Supreme Court parts. One of the men has actually entered a guilty plea to a lesser included offense. Consequently, the city of New York moved to dismiss the charges against the other men because the laboratory report showed that the items sold contained no controlled substance. Apparently, the motion was granted by the court.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Minor Charged with Drug Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

At about 6:30 p.m., a 15 year old boy violated the criminal law. The boy was in unlawful barbiturates possession that can only be obtained by a doctor’s prescription. The boy, prior to his arrest, has been observed by the witness being approached by another youth who placed a dollar bill upon a mail box and in return received something from the boy. The object is being taken from the boy’s right pants pocket where the two bottles of barbiturates was found (drug possession).

There was only one witness who testified at the fact finding trial. The police officer testified that at that day from a distance of about 30 feet, he observed the boy approach a youth at a mail box on a public street in daylight, take a bill of currency placed on top of the mail box, pass an unseen object in his closed hand to the youth and then he followed the boy as he shuffled unsteadily, evidently intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, for about two blocks until he turned through the doorway of a grocery store. The police officer thereupon spoke to the boy in the store. He observed that the shuffling boy appeared to be dazed or drugged, with half-closed eyes. The police officers ask the boy to identify himself and requested to be search. The boy cooperated without objection. Upon tapping his clothes in the well-known manner, the police officer noticed hard objects in the boy’s pocket. He then asked the boy to empty his pockets. Still cooperating without objection, the boy produced two unlabeled brown bottles containing dozens of pills and nine one dollar bills. The boy confessed on the spot, as the police officer testified, that the many white pills were barbiturates and he had sold the pills. He stated that he could not remember or did not know the name of the man from whom he had obtained the pills, a strange man in a park. Quite importantly, the boy further admitted that he had been himself taking those pills for about one and one-half months and his obvious doped condition was the result of it. The pills were now in evidence.

The court was tempted to defer the proceeding, after which no chemical analysis was yet available for the purpose of obtaining the analysis from the police department laboratory. In addition, because of the failure to analyze the pills received in evidence as found in the possession of the boy, there are lengthy observations and findings which the court required to make. The opinion of the court may shed on the juvenile drug crime problem and simplify the evidence and procedures in similar cases.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Court Discusses Amended Habeas Petition

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves two federal prescriptions: the one-year limitation period imposed on federal habeas corpus petitioners by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1); and the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.

Respondent was convicted of murder and robbery in California state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. His current application for federal habeas relief centers on two alleged trial-court errors, both involving the admission of out-of-court statements during the prosecutor’s case in chief but otherwise unrelated. Respondent had made inculpatory statements during pretrial police interrogation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he alleged that those statements were coerced, and that their admission violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He also alleged that the admission of a videotape recording of testimony of a prosecution witness violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

Respondent’s conviction was affirmed on appeal and became final on August 12, 1997. Under the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1), he had until August 12, 1998, to file a habeas petition in federal court. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said on May 8, 1998, in a timely filed habeas petition, respondent asserted his Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of the videotaped prosecution witness testimony, but did not then challenge the admission of his own pretrial statements. On January 28, 1999, over five months after the August 12, 1998 expiration of AEDPA’s time limit and eight months after the court appointed counsel to represent him, respondent filed an amended petition asserting a Fifth Amendment objection to admission of his pretrial statements. In response to the State’s argument that the Fifth Amendment claim was time barred, respondent asserted the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth . . . in the original pleading,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). Because his Fifth Amendment and Confrontation Clause claims challenged the constitutionality of the same criminal conviction, respondent urged, both claims arose out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”

Published on: August 17, 2012

Plaintiff Claims They Were Denied Due Process

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendants for: harassment, blackmailing and conspiring to boycott their classes and attempting to have them terminated from East Texas Police Academy (“ETPA”) in retaliation for their testimony in a case against another police officer involved in a shooting incident. Plaintiffs also claimed violations of: their rights to testify freely under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); their right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment; their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and tortious interference with business relations. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs were instructors at the ETPA, in Kilgore, Texas, which provides basic and advanced training for law enforcement officers in the greater East Texas area. Defendants are the police chiefs or sheriffs from seven cities and counties within the greater East Texas area and who possess final authority over the training of the officers employed by their respective agencies.

Before the fall of 1998, Defendants enrolled their officers in ETPA courses on a regular basis, including courses taught by the Plaintiffs. The defendants were not contractually bound to continue using either the ETPA’s services or the services of Plaintiffs in particular. In August 1998, Plaintiffs voluntarily testified as expert witnesses against a police sniper from Kerrville, Texas who fatally shot a teenager. The said police officer was not trained at the ETPA nor belongs to the police agencies headed by the Defendants. In the said case, Plaintiffs testified that the Kerrville police officer used excessive force and that the Kerrville police department failed to implement the proper policies necessary to direct the conduct of officers acting as snipers.

The said testimony irked the Defendants and threatened the ETPA that they will all stop engaging their services for officer training. One of them said that Plaintiffs testimony “is in direct conflict with the basic fundamentals and expectations that we have come to enjoy from Academy instructors.” It created “conflicts of interest” and violated principles of “cooperative responsibility.” A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said they believe that an unacceptable conflict of interest exists whenever a police instructor testifies against a police officer, regardless of location and regardless of whether the instructor had trained the officer. Such a conflict does not exist when an instructor testifies for police officers.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Petitioner Demands Evidentiary Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was a Florida prisoner on death row, having been convicted of first degree murder. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus setting aside his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the decision of district court. The issues involved are whether or not the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State violated the Brady rule.

An illicit love affair ensued between a man, a real estate broker with ties to Boston’s criminal underworld, and a woman, who was married to a wealthy citrus grower. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man and the woman conspired to kill the wealthy husband by hiring petitioner as an assassin to murder husband. Unfortunately, the murder did not signal the beginning of a blissful life on the estate for the lovers. The man allegedly wanted more money and continue to harass the woman and her child. Terrified, the woman went to the authorities and implicated the man as the person behind her husband’s murder.

During the trial, the man discredited the woman as prosecution’s star witness. Trial proceedings were tainted with evidentiary irregularity leading to the unavailability of key witnesses. The man was discharged from prosecution in the crime of murder. The court then granted the petition to destroy certain physical evidence held for man’s prosecution.

Published on: August 16, 2012

Defendant Previously Tried in Military Court

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter involves Harvey O. Booth and Lee Clary as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court as the respondents. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant in the case is James T. King as the Jefferson County District Attorney. The other case involves the respondents Leslie Bridgewater and Lee Clary as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court and James T. King as the Jefferson County District Attorney as the appellant.

The District Attorney of Jefferson County is appealing two cases. He is seeking to overturn the grant of writs of prohibition that prevent his office from prosecuting serious crimes that were committed by two solders on military property. The soldiers were off duty at the time.

The petitioner soldiers were tried and convicted by a general court martial for identical conduct that they were indicted for in Jefferson County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in each of the cases is whether a military tribunal is considered a court with any jurisdiction in the United States. If a military tribunal is considered a court with jurisdiction than the double jeopardy protection laws of the state of New York would bar the successive prosecution of the issues in these cases.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Reverses Rape Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is Edward Murphy. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

In review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Plaintiff Alleges Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case of the People of the State of New York verses the defendants Smithtown General Hospital, Lorna Salzarullo, David Lipton, Harold Massoff, Lorna Salzarullo, and Mary Chiu, are charged with allowing a prosthetic devices salesman to participate in a meaningful way during a surgical procedure that was being performed at the Smithtown General Hospital without the knowledge or consent of the patient. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, of Suffolk County Part II.

Case Background

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the individual defendants are health care professionals, two are orthopedic surgeons, one is a registered nurse, and the other an anesthesiologist. The alleged incident took place on the third of July, 1975.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent of this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Martin Tankleff. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Martin Tankleff is appealing a decision that denied his motion to vacate two judgments from the same court that convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Case Facts

On the 7th of September, 1988, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff were attacked fatally in their home located in Belle Terre, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the police arrived at the scene of the crime, the defendant, who is the son of the victims and was 17 years old at the time, repeatedly told the police that his father’s business partner, Jerard Steuerman committed the murders.